Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Ajay Rastogi, Abhay S. Oka, JJ.
Noida Industrial Development Authority – Appellant
Versus
Ravindra Kumar & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3762 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 5863 of 2020) with Civil Appeal No. 3781 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 15759 of 2020), Civil Appeal No. 3782 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 15760 of 2020), Civil Appeal No. 3783 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 15761 of 2020), Civil Appeal No. 3779 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 8336 of 2020), Civil Appeal No. 3780 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 8337 of 2020), Civil Appeal No. 3778 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 8335 of 2020), Civil Appeal No. 3777 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 8334 of 2020), Civil Appeal No. 3773 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 8332 of 2020), Civil Appeal No. 3774 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 8333 of 2020), Civil Appeal No. 3768 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 8321 of 2020), Conmt. Pet.(C) No. 237/2021 in Civil Appeal No. 3782 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 15760 of 2020), Civil Appeal No. 3765 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 3531 of 2020), Civil Appeal No. 3772 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 6761 of 2020), Civil Appeal No. 3776 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 6762 of 2020), Civil Appeal No. 3764 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 29444 of 2019), Civil Appeal No. 3769 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 721 of 2020), Civil Appeal No. 3770 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 6379 of 2020), Civil Appeal No. 3771 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 2086 of 2020), Civil Appeal No. 3775 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 7763 of 2020), Civil Appeal No. 3767 of 2022 [Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.8818 of 2022] (D.No.44718 of 2019), Civil Appeal No. 3766 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 2081 of 2020) and Civil Appeal No. 3763 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 27568 of 2019)
Decided On : 09-05-2022
(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Sections 5A and 17 – Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Uttar Pradesh (Determination of Compensation and Declaration of Award by Agreement) Rules, 1997(Karar Niyamawali) – Acquisition of land – Invocation of urgency clause – Challenge to acquisition proceedings – After possession of acquired land was handed over to acquiring body, same has been developed and allotted to third parties – Many land owners agreed to accept compensation under Karar Niyamawali – Substantial work of development was carried out by acquiring body on acquired lands – High Court passed order directing that compensation payable shall be in terms of provisions of 2013 Act on the date of its judgment – While maintaining acquisition proceedings, High Court granted substantial relief to land owners by directing payment of compensation under 2013 Act which is higher than compensation payable under 1894 Act – Such approach cannot be faulted – Without any grievance, land owners voluntarily accepted compensation by agreement in terms of Karar Niyamawali – After lapse of considerable time thereafter, land owners chose to file writ petitions in High Court – After having acquiesced to action of Government by accepting compensation under an agreement, land owners were not justified in making grievance at a belated stage – There is no necessity of initiating any action on the basis of contempt petition – Appeals dismissed. (Paras 10, 11, 14, 15 and 16)
(B) Constitution of India – Article 226 – Writ jurisdiction – Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India is always discretionary – It is an equitable remedy – It is not necessary for High Court to correct each and every illegality – If correction of illegality is likely to have unjust results, High Court would normally refuse to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226. (Para 11)
Facts of the case:
This group of appeals arise out of a common judgment and order dated 13th September 2019 of a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. Some of the appeals are filed by Noida Industrial Development Authority (Acquiring Body). The other appeals are filed by the original writ petitioners before the High Court who are claiming to be owners of the acquired lands. State Government issued a notification dated 7th November 2007 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. By the said notification, State Government notified its intention to acquire 108.233 hectares of lands in Village Begumpur, Pargana Dankaur, Tehsil Sadar, District Gautam Budh Nagar. The purpose of the acquisition was the planned industrial development through New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA). The State Government invoked the urgency clause under sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the 1894 Act and also passed an order under sub-section (4) of Section 17 for dispensing with an enquiry under Section 5A of the 1894 Act. On 17th March 2008, declaration under Section 6 of the 1894 Act was issued by the State Government.
Findings of Court:
No error in the approach of the High Court when it directed payment of market value computed as per the 2013 Act to those land owners who have not accepted the compensation under Karar Niyamawali by taking the date of the judgment as a deemed date after following the 2013 Act. The High Court has done the balancing act by saving the acquisition proceedings while granting monetary relief to the land owners.
Result : Appeals dismissed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points can be summarized as follows:
Landowners who have accepted compensation under an agreement, including the applicable rules, are considered to have acquiesced to the government's action and are not justified in raising grievances at a later stage (!) (!) .
The jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is discretionary and equitable. It is not obligatory for the High Court to correct every illegality, especially if doing so may lead to unjust results (!) .
The acquisition process involved invoking the urgency clause, which was found to be illegal by the High Court. However, the High Court did not quash the acquisition but balanced private rights with public interest by directing that compensation be determined according to the more recent Act, on the date of judgment (!) (!) .
The High Court's approach of maintaining the acquisition proceedings while awarding higher compensation under the 2013 Act is justified and cannot be faulted, given the substantial development undertaken on the acquired lands and the delay in filing petitions (!) (!) .
Landowners who did not accept compensation under the agreement and supported the relief granted by the High Court are in favor of the approach that balances individual rights with public interest (!) .
The relief granted by the High Court, which included awarding higher market value and development benefits, was based on the peculiar facts of the case and is not intended as a precedent for future cases (!) .
The landowners' delay in challenging the acquisition, after substantial development and possession transfer, weakens their claims. Their voluntary acceptance of compensation and subsequent delay in filing petitions diminish their entitlement to further relief (!) .
No error was found in the impugned judgment, and the appeals were dismissed accordingly. Additionally, the contempt petition filed was disposed of, confirming that no further action was necessary (!) (!) .
These points reflect the court's reasoning regarding the legality of the acquisition, the discretion of the High Court in exercising writ jurisdiction, and the importance of timely challenge and acceptance of compensation by landowners.
JUDGMENT :
Abhay S. Oka, J.
Special Leave Petitions
1. Leave granted.
2. This group of appeals arise out of a common judgment and order dated 13th September 2019 of a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. Some of the appeals are filed by Noida Industrial Development Authority (for short, ‘the acquiring body’). The other appeals are filed by the original writ petitioners before the High Court who are claiming to be the owners of the acquired lands.
3. The State Government issued a notification dated 7th November 2007 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the 1894 Act’). By the said notification, the State Government notified its intention to acquire 108.233 hectares of lands in Village Begumpur, Pargana Dankaur, Tehsil Sadar, District Gautam Budh Nagar. The purpose of the acquisition was the planned industrial development through New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA). The State Government invoked the urgency clause under sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the 1894 Act and also passed an order under sub-section (4) of Section 17 for dispensing with an enquiry under Section 5A of the 1894 Act. On 17th March 2008, a declaration under Section 6 of the 1894 Act was issued by the State Government.
4. The possession of the area of 7.559 hectares was taken over by the State Government on 7th June 2008. The possession of the remaining area of 100.64 hectares of the acquired lands was taken over on 15th June 2013. Two separate awards were made on 12th January 2011 and 31st December 2013 respectively. Under the award dated 12th January 2011, to those who agreed to accept compensation as per the Uttar Pradesh (Determination of Compensation and Declaration of Award by Agreement) Rules, 1997 (for short, the ‘Karar Niyamawali’), different rates were fixed. The normal tenure holders who accepted the compensation under the Karar Niyamawali were paid compensation at the rate of Rs.870/- per square meter. To the ancestral tenure holders who agreed to accept the compensation as per the Karar Niyamawali, compensation at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per square meter was paid. For the other tenure holders who declined to receive the compensation as per the Karar Niyamawali, market value at the rate of Rs.135.28/- per square meter was offered together with 30% solatium under sub-section (2) of Section 23 of the 1894 Act and interest at the rate of 12% under sub-section (1A) of Section 23 of the 1894 Act. Under the Award dated 31st December 2013, the same rate of Rs.135.28/- per square meter along with solatium and interest was offered to those who refused to accept the compensation by agreement in accordance with the Karar Niyamawali. However, in the case of normal tenure holders who agreed to accept compensation as per the Karar Niyamawali, compensation at the rate of Rs.1,490/- per square meter was paid. Similarly, to the ancestral tenure holders who agreed to accept the compensation as per the Karar Niyamawali, compensation was paid at the rate of Rs.1,295/- per square meter.
5. It appears that from 2011 to 2014, the writ petitions subject matter of these appeals, were filed before the High Court by the owners/persons interested for challenging the acquisition proceedings and in particular, the application of urgency clause. In the impugned judgment and order, the High Court recorded a finding that the action of the State Government of invoking the urgency clause under Section 17 of the 1894 Act was illegal. However, the High Court did not quash and set aside the declaration made under Section 6 of the 1894 Act and the awards. The High Court held that for balancing individual rights with the public interest, the relief should be moulded for the reason that substantial development work was carried out on the acquired lands. Therefore, the High Court held that those land owners/persons interested who have not accepted the compensation as per Karar Niyamawali should be paid compensation payable in accordan
(1) Acquisition of land – After having acquiesced to action of Government by accepting compensation under an agreement, land owners are not justified in making grievance at a belated stage.(2) Writ j....
Compulsory acquisition of land – If any individual is to be divested or deprived of said right by State, it ought not be done without giving compensation in accordance with law for land so acquired f....
Compliance with Section 17(3-A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is mandatory for absolute vesting of the notified land, and the requirement to pass the award within the time frame contemplated unde....
The judgment emphasizes that lapsing provision under Section 11A does not apply to acquisitions made by Nagpur Improvement Trust under NIT Act, while also highlighting entitlement to compensation for....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the lapse of acquisition proceedings due to the delay in passing the Award, and the applicability of the urgency clause under Section 17 of the 189....
The court upheld the legality of invoking urgency provisions in land acquisition for integrated development, emphasizing adherence to judicial precedents.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
